Sahni v. Yim
Genny Alberts, American Development Corporation (ADC), Ranbir S. Sahni, and 3R Real Estate Corporation (collectively, the Appellants) filed complaints for malicious prosecution against David Rosenbaum, the attorney who initiated a cross-complaint against them on behalf of National Foundation for Housing, Inc. (NFH), and B. Casey Yim and his law firm, the attorneys who took over the representation of NFH from Rosenbaum and continued to prosecute the cross-complaint (collectively, the Attorneys).[2] ADC and 3R obtained summary judgment on the cross-complaint, and Alberts and Sahni were dismissed. The malicious prosecution complaints, which were consolidated in the trial court, allege the cross-complaint was brought without probable cause and with malice because the cross-complainants had no personal knowledge or belief of facts supporting their action, they failed to adequately investigate the factual and legal basis for their action but continued to maintain their action against [the Appellants] despite discovery establishing the lack of any factual basis for their action . . . .
The Attorneys filed special motions to strike the complaints under the anti SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., 425), claiming the Appellants could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the malicious prosecution complaints. The trial court granted the motions and struck the complaints. The Appellants contend the trial court erroneously found there was probable cause to file the cross complaint. After performing a de novo review of the record, Court find the Appellants have not made the necessary showing that the cross complaint was filed and maintained with malice. Accordingly, Court affirm.
Comments on Sahni v. Yim